Obama's Idotic Comment

Obama’s Idiotic Comment on Massacre

 

The Senator compared the mass murder of 32 students and professors at Virginia Tech with what he think as “the violence represented by outsourcing of American jobs”. According to Richard Baehr of Yahoo News, April 18, Obama Not Ready for Prime Time): “He actually made this comparison in his latest attempt at instant profundity.”

 

This comment is totally idiotic. While Americans jobs are being lost to outsourcing because of globalization, more jobs are being created in the same process. The unemployment rate is 4.4% and for college grads it is only 1.8%. Is Obama trying to imply he could have gotten jobs to 29 dead students and their two professors? How stupid one can get?

 

It simply shows Obama is not ready for prime time.   

Malaysia Will Treat Obama as Muslim

 

Those who may like to believe when Obama’s says he is a Christian, although his Kenyan father was a Muslim and his stepfather raised him as a Muslim child in Indonesia, should consider the following case in Malaysia where a woman born to Muslim parents but raised as Hindu by her grandmother is being forced to be “rehabilitated” as a Muslim by Malaysia’s Religious Department.  (Jerusalem Post, April 18^th, “Malaysia: Islam ‘rehabilitates’ members of other faiths”.)

 

Malaysian Islamic raw regards people born to Muslims as being Muslims themselves. Revathi Masoosai, an ethnic Indian, was born to Indian Muslim parents who gave her a Muslim name, Siti Fatimah. According to Revathi, her grandmother raised her as a Hindu and changed her name in 2001. Revathi married a Hindu, Suresh, in 2004 according to Hindu rites, but the marriage has not been legally registered because Suresh refused to convert to Islam. Islamic officials seized their 15-month old daughter and handed the child to Revathi’s Muslim mother. Revathi was sent to a religious rehabilitation center and her detention has been extended without any explanation to her husband.

 

The point is: in the eyes of most Muslims Obama is a Muslim and it would not be surprising if one fine morning he rediscovers Islam, say soon after he is elected president.

One could only guess the shock for the liberal-reform Jews who are now supporting and bank rolling his candidacy. He may even ask Americans to convert to Islam for amicable relations with a nuclear Iran and world peace. Yes, this scenario is off the wall, but is not as unrealistic as many may think.

Brewing Democratic Disaster?

 

One may think Democrats are a sure bet to win the White House in 2008. After all they won the Congressional elections and now control both the Senate and the House. Bush popularity remains at all time low and Americans are tired of the Iraq war.

 

Think again. In this setting one would expect polls to show leading Democratic presidential contenders defeating leading Republican contenders in the 2008 election. But that is not the case. Republican hopeful Rudi Giuliani had a 48% to 43% edge over Hillary Clinton and was even with Barak Obama at 45% in the April 4-9 Time poll. In all other established polls a similar trend was evident in February and March. Only in a recently started LA Times/Bloomberg poll Obama was ahead of Giuliani by 46% to 42% in the April 4-9 period. Even in the LA Times poll Giuliani defeated Clinton 48% to 42%.

 

The above results are before the do or die slugfest between Clinton and Obama for the Democratic nomination in coming months. Both Democratic contenders have amassed huge amounts of money in the first quarter and are going to go on a spending spree to undercut each other. Obama reduced Clinton lead to 8% (28% to 36%) in an April 10-12 CNN poll. Clinton’s margin reflects an 11-point edge over Obama with black voters, but Obama’s share of black vote shows a steady up trend and Clinton’s black voter edge is likely to diminish as the year unfolds. As the lead continues to narrow, Clinton will have to attack Obama’s soft underbelly of Islamic childhood, intention to send troops to Darfur and limited experience in foreign affairs. Islam will have to become a major issue to divert liberal-reform Jewish voters and money from Obama. The recently released details of fund raising activity shows rich liberal Jews from Hollywood and Chicago are poring money into Obama’s campaign and these funds could become a key factor in giving him the nomination.

 

Obama could win the nomination but has no chance of winning the election. His Muslim childhood will divert a large part of the religious black vote to Republicans and solidify their support among their traditional base of conservative Christians. Questions regarding his willingness to militarily defend Israel will split the Jewish vote. Normally, African Americans and Jews vote heavily Democratic. Democratic strength is on the Pacific coast and Northeast, but Obama will have a hard time making inroads in the Republican South and in Republican leaning conservative heartland.

 

If Clinton wins the nomination, she will face the national tiredness with Clintons. In a March 27^th Harris Interactive poll half of voting age Americans said they would not vote for her. More than one in five Democrats said they would not vote for her. Forty-eight percent of independent voters said they would choose another candidate over Clinton. Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45% of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69% of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton. Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton as a person.

 

 

 

 

Pelosi of Arabia

Catastrophe Scenarios

Sliding Towards A Catastrophic Outcome

This is not fiction or a fairy tale. The “Catastrophe” scenario risk is more imminent than global warming because many forces are pushing us towards it and any one of the forces could push things over the edge and a disaster could unfold sooner than global warming.

Here are the broad outlines of these forces:

Religious Beliefs

The Iranian Shia believe that the Twelfth Imam (their Messiah) will reveal himself only after a catastrophic event destroys the world as we know, and then create a new harmonious Shia-world to replace the old-world. Within this framework of religious expectations, the Iranian regime could initiate or invite a catastrophic confrontation with Israel or the USA, soon after it succeeds in manufacturing an atomic bomb.

Once again, this is not a fairy tale: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in it and countries in the Middle East consider it as a real possibility. Ms. Karen Elliot House detailed this risky scenario, as seen by the Saudis and others attending the recent Riyadh Islamic nations meeting in her April 4^th WSJ article titled Saudi Balancing Act.

According to the April 2^nd ABC Nightly News report, many respected analysts feel Iran could have an atomic bomb as early as 2009, which is much sooner than the US intelligence agency forecast of sometime after 2015. Iran is expected to install 1000 centrifuges soon and as many 3500 may be operational by the middle of next year, which could provide Tehran enough fuel to manufacture two or three bombs.

In the West, Christian Zionists are becoming influential factor in shaping US and Israel policies. In a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, Rev. John Hagee a leading pro-Israel Christian Zionist said that “50 million evangelicals and 5 million Jews” would work to defend Israel. Rev. Hagee and others focus on a biblical mandate to love the Jewish people and stand up for Israel. Their focus is on biblical prophecy about new and horrific wars, death on an unimaginable scale and a peace that can come only with the Second Coming of Jesus. Rev. Hagee has called for preemptive attacks on Iran, and linked that to Bible prophecy, promising “the greatest war the world has ever seen will soon envelop Israel and Jerusalem.” (Source: Rapturous On Israel, Jewish Times, March 30, 2007.)

Islam has not modernized and is dominated by its 7^th Century dogma of killing Jews and other non-believers if they do not convert. We all hope the religion followed by nearly 1.3 billion people will modernize so that humanity could live in peace, but there are very few signs of meaningful progress in this direction. Recently the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) denounced “any notion of a Reformation as another attempt by the West to impose its history and philosophy on the Islamic world.” A small group of secular Muslims recently gathered in St. Petersburg, Florida, to advocate modernization of Islam, but individuals representing CAIR attacked the secular concepts advocated by this group. In a late-March article in the Washington Post, titled A More Islamic Islam, Geneive Abdo said: “The problem with this prescription is that …if Muslims are fed a steady diet of Western influence, they, too, will embrace modernity, secularism and everything else the West has to offer…What all this means is that Western hopes for full integration by Muslims in the West are unlikely to be realized and the future of the Islamic world will be much more Islamic than Western.”

A most disturbing aspect of the situation is that some liberals in the West are going overboard in appeasing 7^th century Islamic practices. In the US, recently a judge released a Muslim who was arrested for beating his wife by citing Qu’ran’s permission to do so. Fortunately, that judge was removed soon thereafter from the bench. In Minnesota, Muslim taxi drivers are refusing to carry passengers who carry liquor and the city considered accommodating them by installing two types of lights on the cabs to indicate Muslim and non-Muslim drivers. In Europe, many countries have setup separate schools for Muslims where Islam is taught as part of the curriculum. Some countries have considered permitting Muslim Sharia laws to govern marriages and other social behavior. Fortunately, we are beginning to see a reaction against these developments in Europe.

There is a fallacy in the West that Muslim extremist are a small group, who could be eliminated by force (i.e. killed) or through full integration of Muslims in western societies. This ignores the fact that the extremist can easily recruit and replenish their ranks from the general Muslim population who basically subscribes to their creed because of the fundamental teachings of Islam. Here is what Wafa Sultan, one of the participants in the St. Petersburg conference said: She doesn’t “see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam”. Ayann Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam as practiced today, has made similar comments in her recently published biography, the Infidel.

Iranian Economic Deterioration

The catastrophic war scenario probability is increasing because of deteriorating economic situation in Iran. Crude oil exports remain the primary source of revenues, but Iran has to import huge quantities of refined gasoline and new international sanctions will make it even more difficult to jump start industries, which could provide employment to growing number of youths. Furthermore, with increasing domestic oil consumption, crude exports will decline sharply in 20 to 25 years. This two-decade point when Iranian leverage to assert its hegemony over the Middle East will be sharply reduced increases the possibility of a drastic action by Iran in the next 10-15 years.

Nuclear War

The catastrophic war scenario should be taken seriously because of rapidly progressing Iranian nuclear program and the Bush administration and Israeli determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and delivery systems to preemptively attack Iran. The US has a huge navel force in the area. But Iran may feel it will have the upper hand in a conflict because of US problems in Iraq, especially if the US leaves Iraq in a hurry.

It is said that former Iranian president Rafsanjani believes that an atomic bomb will wipe out Israel but the same bomb will merely make a dent in Iran. If Rafsanjani, who is considered a more pragmatic politician, can rationalize the nuclear war in that fashion, it is quite possible a zealot like Ahmadinejad, the current president, could plunge the nation in a nuclear war on the slightest hint of victory.

Pelosi’s Disastrous Visit to Syria

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on April 4^th over the objections of President Bush and announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. The problem was that Mr. Olmert did not give her any message to deliver and immediately repudiated her assertion. As the Washington Post’s April 5^th editorial stated: “But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.”

The comments from US Jews in response to the publication of Olmert statement repudiating Pelosi assertion in the April 5^th Jerusalem Post were even more discerning of growing rift between liberal led Democrats and conservative and pro-Israel Jews. Most of these comments chided Pelosi for her foolish actions and undermining Israel’s security.

Jews have traditionally voted Democratic but with Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Reid acting to undermine US in Iraq and the Middle East, a large proportion of Jews may end up voting Republican, especially if Democrats nominate Barak Hussein Obama.

Obama-Islamic-Plant

Could Obama Be An Islamic-Plant?

Recently available information suggests the probability of a scenario in which President Barak Hussein Obama acts to further the Islamic cause and undermine U.S. political and military foundations, is not zero, and although it may sound far fetched it should be considered a serious risk.

A major attack on the United States, one designed to undermine our political system and military capability, may not be launched by some Muslim youths from Saudi Arabia, as was the case in the 9/11 attack, but probably will be orchestrated by very sophisticated individuals and its planning and execution would easily surpass the Manchurian Candidate movie scenario.

Here are some highlights from the studies of European terrorist activities published in the Washington Post on March 12^th in an article by Craig Whitlock, titled Terrorists Proving Harder to Profile. “In Britain, three of the suspects arrested in last summer’s alleged transatlantic airline hijacking plot were religious converts who grew up in north London’s affluent suburbs. One was the well-to-do English son of a Conservative Party activist; he worked in a bar and loved the movie “Team America”.” In Belgium, a blond, white Catholic woman converted to Islam, traveled to Iraq and blew herself up. In Holland, a key figure of Islamic cell was teenage son of a U.S. soldier. “There are clear signs that al-Qaeda cells and affiliates are intentionally recruiting supporters from nontraditional background as a way to avoid detection.” Other reports have noted that many individuals arrested in London or are under surveillance come from affluent families, were studying at leading universities and some have advanced degrees. In Iraq, just the other day, two children were driven in the rear seat of the car so that U.S. security forces allow the car to pass a check point, and the vehicle was blown to pieces after the adult passengers disappeared in the crowd. The recently published details of terrorist plots planned or executed by al-Queda master plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed should remind Americans of the extent to which Islamists will go to hurt us.

Obama Enrolled As Muslim Student In Indonesia

In a detailed article on Obama’s religious status in Indonesia, Paul Watson reported in an article titled “Islam an unknown factor in Obama bid”, published in the March 16^th Baltimore Sun, that Obama was registered as Muslim in two schools. According to his childhood friend Zulfin Adi: “His mother often went to the church, but Barry [Obama’s nickname] was Muslim. He went to the mosque.” (Other sources tell us his mother was an atheist.) According to Adi, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo [Obama’s stepfather] and Barry would walk to the mosque together. His first grade teacher at St. Francis said: “He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim.”

Obama was registered as a Muslim when he enrolled in Model Primary School Menteng 1, and had to take two-hour classes in third and fourth grades to learn about Islam each week. Indonesia is the world’s most populous Islamic-majority country, and while his religious classes probably did not require him to recite Qu’ran several hours each day as required in a Pakistani Madrassa, their cannot be much difference in the basic content of Islam as taught in his classes and in the Madrassas. He was very young, 6 to 10 years, and in those formative years the fundamental idea of Islam that all aspects of life are governed by religion and that a good Muslim expects government to follow religious laws, must have been drummed into his brain. The secular concepts that we cherish, such as separation of church and state, would be anathema. But Obama has repeatedly claimed he was brought up in a secular household, which sounds very suspicious in view of these details about his early life.

What is also disturbing that Obama’s chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, asserted on January 24th: “ To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.” But in a statement to The Los Angeles Times on March 14^th the campaign offered slightly different wording: “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.” The new statement adds that as a child, Obama did spend time in the neighborhood’s Islamic center. Were they trying to hide something?

Then we have this observation in the very informative Ben Wallace-Wells’s Rolling Stone article, The Radical Roots of Barack Obama, Februrary 7, 2007: “His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church….He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue.” One has to ask: What is his true belief? Is adopting Christianity simply convenient for a brilliant individual to rise to the top of our society and then abandon that cover in favor of Islam at a suitable time? May be as President he will ask Americans to convert to save the world.

Obama on Iraq and Darfur

In a February 23^rd Chicago Tribune article, Obama’s Muddled View of Intervention, well known historian Niall Ferguson notes that while Obama has introduced legislation to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a December 2005 article Obama urged the deployment of “a UN- or NATO-led force” in Darfur. Ferguson comments: “Wait a second. Here are two civil wars, each likely to spiral out of control. But in (Sudan), Obama recommends intervention, while in the other (Iraq), he recommends military withdrawal. Am I missing something?”

He cites a study by Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollackpointed of Brookings Institution, a liberal philosophy oriented research center, which concludes that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, as Obama recommends, a humanitarian nightmare is likely in which “hundred of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die.”

Scary Scenario

In my view this would be a perfect scenario for an Islamist to destroy the will of Americans to fight again: Withdraw from Iraq in a disarray and leave Iraq and the Middle East in the hands of Islamic terrorists. Throw American forces in Africa’s Darfur nightmare, where not even African countries dare to intervene and let them be slaughtered by Sudanese Arab militias. Retreat is disarray again and handover Africa to Islam.

Of course, we may then choose to impeach or hang Obama, but that will not matter at all.

Does this establish Obama is an Islamic plant: No. Do the bits and pieces of new information we are getting raise enough suspicion regarding Obama: yes. And given these questions it may not be wise to handover the keys of the kingdom to him, especially when there are other highly qualified candidates without any doubts about their background and intentions.

Obama Risk

It is becoming clear that Democrats are betting on U.S. defeat in Iraq to win the White House in 2008. They most fear that the Bush troop surge may succeed, as recent reports suggest, and have introduced legislation that are designed to engineer a U.S. failure. The Los Angeles Times reported on March 12^th that American military planners have begun plotting a fallback strategy in case Congressional actions (and any other reasons) result in an Iraq disaster.

Politics is a dirty game but this is real dirty. The Democrats call their strategy the “slow bleed”, which allows them to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong, without assuming responsibility for conducting the war, and appearing as saviors of the nation from the Iraq crisis. They must have a very low opinion of American voters, consider them very naïve and hope to fool them easily.

In his March 11^th Washington Post article titled “The Surge is Succeeding”, Robert Kagan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, summarized recent positive developments: the report by Fadhil brothers, who are independent Baghdad bloggers, that “early signs are encouraging” (see 3/5 WSJ for their full report); increased number of security tips; decline in number of insurgent attacks; and progress towards a national agreement on sharing oil revenues. Fadhils report that because of reduced violence and the new “clear and hold strategy” many “Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism.”

Kagan notes that even Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News (3/5 broadcast) reported a dramatic improvement in Ramadi, which is in the heart of Sunni insurgency, since his previous visit and thought “the war has changed”.

Reuters reported on March 14^th that key U.S. and Iraqi officials were cautiously optimistic. Maj. Gen. William B.Caldwell said the level of sectarian killings had dropped significantly in the month since the operation began. “If the high-profile car bombs can be stopped or brought down to a much lower level, we’ll just see an incredible difference in the city overall.”

Obama is the leading proponent of the emerging “cut-and-run” Democratic strategy for Iraq. He is loved by the left wing of the party, which includes Hollywood anti-war Jewish luminaries. He has surged in popularity among African-Americans and hopes to do the same among white women. Hillary Clinton’s lead over Obama has shrunk, which may have forced her to go along with the proposition of withdrawal by a date certain, i.e. March 2008, which she had previously rejected. The Democratic proposals incorporating the March 2008 withdrawal deadline was crafted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the help of John Murtha, but the left wing of the party is insisting on immediate withdrawal by withholding funds to finance the war.

Speaking of the Jewish vote, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned at the March 13^th session of the pro-Israel AIPAC conference that “those who are concerned for Israel’s security, for the security of the gulf states, and for the stability of the entire Middle East should recognize the need for American success in Iraq, and responsible exit…” Many participants booed House Speaker Pelosi when she said the Iraq war was a failure because it did not make U.S. safer, U.S. military stronger and the region more stable. In sharp contrast, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner received a rousing reception when he said U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq and linked the outcome of the war with the future of Israel. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both supported Israel in their speeches but according to one blogger there was widespread skepticism regarding Obama’s true feelings among participants in the meeting.

The point is the support of a few Hollywood Jewish moguls and their raising of couple of million dollars for Obama is not necessarily a sign of broad based Jewish support for the cut-and-run Democratic Iraq agenda.

Will Democrats destroy themselves by nominating Sen. Barack Hussein Obama remains to be seen? Republicans are hoping they will.

Rock Star Syndrome

Obama’s “Sudden Political-Rock-Star Syndrome”

We are not only dealing with FBI’s renaming Jihadist terrorist acts committed in the United States as “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”, but also with Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s current persona as a political rock star. George Clooney calls him a “true rock star” presence.

Let me define the “Sudden Political Rock Star Syndrome” as a condition where a politician thinks his charming personality will overcome his lack of experience, absence of well articulated positions on critical domestic and global issues except one that may be dominant in public discussions (such as Iraq) and an Islamic heritage despite the nasty role being played by that religion in the current global turmoil.

Signs of Rock Star Syndrome

Here is what Ben Wallace-Wells said in his very interesting February 7^th Rollingstone article, The Radical Roots of Barack Obama: “Obama is trying to pull a less-conventional trick: to turn his own person into a movement…What Obama stands for, if anything, is not yet clear…Everywhere he goes he is greeted by thrilled crowds, trailed constantly by a reporter from The Chicago Tribune who is writing a book about the senator with a preliminary title so immodest that it embarrassed even Obama’s staff: The Savior.” He adds: “The danger here is that the public has committed the cardinal sin of political love, forcing Obama onto the national stage before knowing him well enough to gauge whether he’s ready for it.”

He also reports that preliminary polls show that “women responded more intensely and warmly to Obama than did men…His advisers, assuming they would pick up a healthy chunk of black votes, honed in on a different target: …women, nearly all of them white.” “There is an amazingly candid moment in Obama’s autobiography when he writes of his childhood discomfort at the way his mother would sexualize African-American men…Obama’s political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man.” On this point, Obama’s problem is he would have to demolish Hillary Clinton to get the nomination, which may not sit well with white women voters at all.

According to recent polls, Obama has surged over Clinton among black voters, but lags behind her in national surveys. A March 7^th Quinnipiac University poll found Obama behind Republican Giuliani in Florida (48%-36%), Ohio (48%-40%), and Pennsylvania (48%-36%). Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are critical states in presidential elections because no candidate since 1965 has taken the White House without taking at least two of these swings states. The Quinnipiac poll also found that 4 in 10 voters haven’t yet formed an opinion of Obama, leaving the possibility of sudden fall from the current stardom heights as they discover more about his Muslim heritage and policy positions. Giuliani had an impressive lead over his Republican opponents and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Hollywoods’s rich Jewish luminaries are throwing parties for him, but it remains to be seen how long this love affair lasts once the senator details his positions on Hamas, Hizbollaha, Darfur and other issues involving Islam. His spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, senior pastor of Afrocentric Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago thinks: “When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

According to the March 6^th New York Times article, Rev. Wright was suppose to have delivered the invocation when Senator Obama announced his candidacy on February 10^th, but that invitation was rescinded a day before the event. This may be a reflection of the depth of his Christian religious convictions and increases the suspicion that he is really a Muslim masquerading as a Christian to serve Islam. Or it could be an attempt not to raise the ire of his rich Jewish promoters.

At some point Obama will have to detail his positions on issues involving Islam. If he tries to finesse them he will surely displease his Jewish supporters, and if he attacks the Islamic views he may not be able to visit his grandmother in Kenya, who as a good Muslim will be surely obliged to slit his throat.

I can see why Republicans may be praying that Democrats name him as their candidate.

Modernize Islam

Senator Obama: You Can Help Modernize Islam

Thomas Friedman’s March 2^nd New York Times article, The Silence That Kills, was particularly interesting because Senator Obama remains silent regarding his Muslim ancestry and its impact on his policy positions. Senator Obama has yet to publish position papers on Israel, dealing with Hamas and Hizbollaha, Iran and other topics.

Friedman’s article described how a suicide bomber killed 150 people gathered to open an emergency ward in Afghanistan and a female suicide bomber killed 40 students in Baghdad. He says: “Stop and think for a moment how sick this is. Then stop for another moment and listen to the silence. The Bush team is mute…Europeans are mute…But worst of all, Muslims, the very people whose future is being killed, are also mute…the Arab-Muslim village is largely silent. The best are indifferent or intimidated; the worst quietly applaud the Sunnis who kill Shiites.” He quotes Mamoun Fandy, director of the Middle East program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies: The world worries about highly enriched uranium, but “the real danger is highly enriched Islam.”

According to Friedman: “One result: there’s no legitimate, decent, accepted source of Arab-Muslim authority today, no center of gravity “for people to anchor their souls in.” In this welter of confusion, the suicide bombers go uncondemned or subtly extolled.”

So, here is your chance Senator Obama to provide real leadership to moderate and modernize Islam: Please help create an authoritative institution of progressive thinkers that provides a peaceful interpretation of Quran based on its many benign verses and condemns the acts of violence as dictated by Quran’s 7^th-century dogma. Such an institution created under your leadership can become a source of global peace.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

Terrorism’s New Name: “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”

Investor’s Daily of February 20, 2007 reported that the FBI calls incidents of violent attacks by Muslim youths in the United States as “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” and does not consider them as “terrorist” acts. Sudden Jihad Syndrome is defined as a condition in which normal-appearing American Muslims abruptly turn violent. It seems the FBI is trying to hide jihadist acts of terror committed here, in America, in the guise of political correctness?

The ID has a long list of such incidents, but here is a sample for your consideration.

The Salt Lake City mall attack, in which five innocent shoppers were shot dead and four others were wounded, was launched by an 18-year old Bosnian Muslim immigrant, Sulejman Talovic, who had enough ammo to kill dozens of victims-and he would have, if an alert off-duty cop hadn’t returned fire and stopped him. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Talovic attended Friday prayers at a mosque about a block from the mall.

A 22-year old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to “punish the government of the United States” for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations. He wrote a letter to a TV station citing Quranic verses justifying his attacks and told a detective that Muslims “all over the world are being killed, and now it is the people in the United States’ turn to be killed.”

A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque.

Caroline Glick of Jerusalem Post also pointed out in her February 26^th article (Our World: Jihad’s campus collaborators) that a Muslim named Derrick Shareef was arrested in early December for plotting to carry out a similar [to Salt Lake City] attack at a shopping mall in Illinois just before Christmas, after he told FBI informants of his plans to murder Jews specifically and Americans in particular for Allah. Glick adds: “The general tendency of Westerners is to view global jihad as a foreign policy issue. But today it is clear that it is also a domestic policy issue.”

Former NYC mayor Ed Koch wrote in his February 27^th JP blog: “When the US leaves Iraq, as the Democrats promise they will force President Bush to do, will we face the prospect of emboldened Jihadists, with the cry of “God is Great” on their lips, blowing Americans up here in the States?” He added: “Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of al-Qaeda, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, have publicly stated all our sins will be forgiven if we convert and urged President Bush to lead the way with his personal conversion.”

Koch reminded that: “There were many who believed they could tame Hitler…And yet, despite all the horror and carnage of the past, we don’t appear to be learning from history. We don’t seem to remember that appeasement never works. It didn’t work at Munich in 1938 with Chamberlain’s infamous statement that we had achieved “peace in our time” with Hitler. It won’t work now.”

So, to Hollywood Jewish billionaire supporters of Senator Barack Hussein Obama: Learn from history and seek clear statement of policy and faith before jumping on Senator’s bandwagon. Here is a British poll that should give you second thoughts: Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari’a law than under British Common Law; 36% think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13% admire al-Qaeda and similar terror groups; and 74% believe women should wear veils.

Obama Militia

Obama’s Militias

Strange things are happening.

Hollywood Jewish luminaries are falling over each other to show their support for Obama without concern for his Muslim ancestry, while the Black Establishment seems to think Obama ancestors were not slaves here or “have themselves experienced the trauma of this country’s racial history (Marjorie Valburn in WP, Black Like Me?)”, and therefore question his suitability to represent the black community. As I previously reported, Rev. Sharpton, who sought nomination in the last presidential election, has already indicated Obama is not black enough for his taste.

It is interesting to note that Eugene Robinson writing in the February 20^th WP implied that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are trying to “convince people that Obama somehow isn’t black enough” without mentioning Sharpton, and ignoring the fact hat Clinton and Edwards have never made such assertion directly or indirectly.

One of the Jewish luminaries, music mogul David Geffen, was not content with hosting the fundraiser for Obama, which netted $1.3 million, and had to tell awful things about Bill and Hillary Clinton to Maureen Dowd, perhaps to prove how much he hates Bill and Hillary, his old friends, and perhaps to prove to Obama his loyalty more than what might have been earned by his DreamWorks partners, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who co-sponsored the Hollywood soiree. Who knows? May be he would like to be appointed ambassador to Israel so that he can atone for his sins at the Western Wall. Or one of his close friends needs a pardon. He still resents that Bill did not grant last minute pardon to his friend Leonard Peltier, a native American serving life sentence for the 1975 murder of two FBI agents. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is a declared candidate, said of Geffen’s comments: “I think these name-callings are not good.”

The Jewish community, including the above Hollywood honchos, should keep in mind the following comment posted on a ABC news Brian Ross report on the function (Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?) by someone named Jihad Jane on February 20^th: “Muslims will rule the world. Go Barak Husein Obama! We are in the Senate, we will run your country, and you will pay for your insolence.” Recently, several American Muslim youths from Chicago area were indicted in connection with a suspected plot to carry out a holy war against American troops in Iraq and for providing material support to terrorists.

One of the most cherished gifts of our nation to its citizens is their freedom to practice their religion, but this does not mean we don’t ask questions regarding the religious beliefs of our political leaders and those aspiring to lead us. Questions were raised regarding the catholic faith of John Kennedy and Orthodox Judaism of Joe Lieberman. People are talking about the Mormon faith of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. And it is absolutely important we explore the views of Barack Hussein Obama on Islam as it is practiced today.

We have nineteen hundred year history of Islam, which clearly shows its brutal nature.

Even a cursory look at the Taliban period in Afghanistan or the al-Queda declarations and decapitations in Iraq, or the Hamas view of Israel, should give liberals, particularly Jews, second thoughts. As Theodore Dalrymple summarizes in When Islam Breaks Down (City Journal, Spring 2004): “The indivisibility of any aspect of life from any other in Islam is a source of strength, but also of fragility and weakness, for individuals as well as for polities. Where all conduct, all custom, has a religious sanction and justification, any change is a threat to the whole system of belief. Certainty that their way of life is the right one thus coexists with fear that the whole edifice-intellectual and political-will come down if it is tampered with in any way. Intransigence is a defense against doubt and makes living on terms of true equality with others who do not share the creed impossible.”

Yes, one can find some benign verses in Quran, but those who have tried to bring moderation to this religion on that basis have been ostracized and the religion continues to be governed by verses that demand violent acts against non-believers, particularly the Jews. Just the other day an Egyptian court convicted a blogger in 5 minutes to three years in prison for insulting Islam and inciting sedition because he called al-Azhar “the university of terrorism” and accused it of suppressing free thought. The blogger was a student at Al-Azhar, which is one of the most revered institutions in the Islamic world, and was expelled for his views. Chapter two in Paul Barrett’s recently published American Islam documents the life story of Abou El Fadl who tried to present a peaceful version of Islam based on benign Quran verses and how he is shunned by the mainstream Islamic establishments. I have already mentioned in my earlier blog, Iraq Conundrum, Ms. Ayann Hirsi Ali’s recently published biography, Infidel, describing the awful aspects of Islam as it is practiced today.

In Europe, according to Nick Cohen (An Upside-Down World, WSJ, February 23, 2007), things are much worse: “Beyond the contortions and betrayals of liberal and leftish thinking lies a simple emotion that I don’t believe Americans take account of: an insidious fear that has produced the ideal conditions for appeasement. Radical Islam does worry Europeans but we are trying to prevent an explosion by going along with Islamist victimhood. We blame ourselves for the Islamist rage, in the hope that our admission of guilt will pacify our enemies. We are scared, but not scared enough to take a stand.”

So, Senator Obama tell us your views on Islam and how your Muslim heritage will influence your policies. Where are your position papers on Israel, dealing with Hamas, Hizbullaha and Darfur? We have a right to know these things before we consider you a serious candidate for U.S. presidency.

Obama Fizzling

Obama Fizzling?

According to the February 13^th Drudge Report “NY Times edit queen Maureen Dowd unloads on Barack Obama in her Wednesday filing… Dowd describes Obama as a “tad testy” as he was “traipsing around desolate stretches of snowy – and extremely white – Iowa. Obama had “ moments of looking conflicted”…Dowd snaps: “He poses for the cover of MEN’s Vogue and then gets huffy when people don’t treat him as Hannah Arendt”.”

A reading of the article in the February 14^th NYT suggests questions are being raised regarding lack of substantive Obama positions besides withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008. Dowd writes: “After talking to high school journalists, he took a sniffy shot at the loutish reporters who were merely whispering where’s the beef: “Take some notes, guys, that’s how it is done.”…”For a man who couldn’t wait to inject himself into the national arena,…., the senator is oddly put off by press inquisitions.”

Salon.com’s Camille Paglia wrote on February 14^th: “I love the way Barack Obama has nimbly upstaged the ponderous Hillary machine…But Obama’s effusive gusts of generalities irritate me; it’s all sizzle and no steak right now. He needs seasoning: 2012 may be his year.”

Senator Barack Hussein Obama has had a bad week since he formally announced his candidacy. He undiplomatically snubbed Australian prime minister because of his criticism of Obama’s Iraq position and called the death of more than 3000 American in Iraq a “waste”. He later apologized for his “waste” comment. If he continues on this track he is likely to transform the Dutch and other nations who have small contingents in Iraq into our enemies. On the positive side, Virginia governor may endorse him.

I also do not understand why the senator does not use his middle name Hussein. Is it to hide his Muslim ancestry? Actually, Barack is also a Muslim name but it is not recognized as such like Hussein, Mohammed and Osama. For a more detailed discussion of my views on this topic see my Iraq Conundrum write-up and its Obama Controversy section.

Since Senator Obama has chosen to follow his mother’s Christian religion and forsake his father’s Muslim faith, he is an apostate for most Muslims, particularly for “true believers”. Apostates are treated very harshly in Islam. As Theodore Dalrymple points out in his brilliant article, When Islam Breaks Down (City Journal, Spring 2004): “…the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death: apostates are regarded as far worse than infidels, and punished far more rigorously.”

For those who are curious, I am a naturalized American from India and my name in based on Hindu monkey God Lord Hanuman. I never had any problems professionally or socially. We live in a relatively affluent neighborhood and recently a Nigerian family bought a house. His name is Olu (for short), which does not seem to bother anyone. In casual conversation it became clear they were a Christian family who migrated from the southern part of that country; Muslims mostly live in the north.

The point is: we are a multiracial society and there is no need to hide the racial or religious heritage unless you want to fool people into believing something different than what you really are. Is Mr. Obama a secular-Christian as he proclaims or deep in his heart, because of his heritage, he is a really a Muslim? This is a reasonable question to ask as Mr. Obama seeks the highest and most powerful office in the country. Mr. Obama has done well as an American and he should try not to hide his Muslim heritage from Americans and should clarify his religious beliefs. I have not received any replies to my e-mail inquires from his office or his church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, regarding the influence of Mr. Obama’s Muslim heritage on his Iraq and Darfur positions and his current religious beliefs.

Al-Qaeda Praying for Obama

Al-Qaeda Praying for Obama?

Senator Barack Hussein Obama reiterated that U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008 if he were elected president of the United States. As I mentioned in the Iraq Conundrum write-up, this is the earnest hope of Islamic extremists who are fond of showing Arab television viewers U.S. troops leaving Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu in 1993 and Vietnam in 1975. Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard said on Sunday, February 11^th: “If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”

My question for Senator Obama is: Would you also refuse to intervene in Darfur where Sudanese Arab militias are slaughtering African Muslims? Or would you send American troops there even when European and African countries are unwilling to commit their forces to stop the genocide?

The point is: it is easy to announce a troop withdrawal policy and exploit the current public sentiment than to have a vision of American role in the unfolding global environment. What is your vision of the unfolding world situation Mr. Obama? Do you see the Sunni-Shia conflict subsiding? That seems unlikely and the sectarian conflict is likely to engulf not only Iraq but the whole Middle East if U.S. troops are withdrawn abruptly. Here is what a Sunni cleric Abdul Rahman al-Barak, who is close to Saudi royal family said about Shias: “infidels, apostates and hypocrites.”

Lately, the pacifist drumbeat is being presented as well though out views of trained soldiers. Consider the February 10^th article in the Washington Post, Victory Is Not an Option, by retired army lieutenant general William E. Odom. There are so many questionable statements in it but one of the four myths, number 4 to be exact, underscored by Mr. Odom is outrageous and implies we should ask soldiers if they want to stay and fight and should withdraw if an increasing number of soldiers are unhappy with the war. Although the biographical blurb with the article does not mention it, Mr. Odom wrote “U.S. Should “Cut and Run” From Iraq” in October 4, 2005 Democracy Now!’ issue. He was of course part of the Carter team that gave us the Iran disaster.

Senator Obama is a good man but he is not ready to lead America and the world.

Joe Lieberman Choke-hold on Senate Democrats

Joe Lieberman

In my Iraq Conundrum essay I mentioned the critical role played by Senator Joe Lieberman in providing Democrats a majority in the Senate. This point was clearly articulated in the February 12^th New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg, titled The Lorax: “ Lieberman’s Democratic colleagues know that if he switched parties they would lose their majority, and so they tend to indulge him, unless they are speaking to reporters off the record.”

Joe Lieberman is a strong supporter of Bush Iraq policy. He told Goldberg: “So why do I trust President Bush in spite of the mistakes that were made, consequential mistakes? Because having watched him, having talked to him, I believe that he understands the life-and-death struggle we are in with the most deadly and unconventional enemy, Islamic extremism. And that he has shown himself, notwithstanding all these mistakes, willing to go forward with what he believes is right for the security of the country, regardless of what it has done to him popularity.”

The article also mentions that he is reading “America Alone” by Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism.

It should be clear from this that Senate Democrats will never dare to rock the boat.

Europe and Islam

New Books on Clash of Civilizations

In my February 7^th blog, Iraq Conundrum, I had an extensive discussion on the lack of modernization of Islam and the resulting risk of a clash of civilizations. I have referred

several books and articles on the subject, and the article published in February 8^th’s New York Times, (In Books, a Clash of Europe and Islam by Patricia Cohen), provides references to other recently published books on the topic.

Ms. Cohen’s article highlights the controversy generated by Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept. Some called it “racism as criticism”, but Mr. Bawer defended his views by pointing out that “one of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberal have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one’s own children in the name of honor, etc., etc.,”. His book warns that “by appeasing a totalitarian ideology” Europe “was imperiling its liberty”.

Religion, and particularly the Muslim background of Senator Barack Hussein Obama, despite his claim that he is a secular Christian, will be quite prominent during debates leading to Democratic primaries and other nominating processes. Already questions are being raised regarding the Mormon background of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney who is seeking the Republican nomination.

Iraq Conundrum

Iraq is a mess and there are no easy solutions to improve the situation. Three thousand plus American deaths and seven times that number injured have made the Iraq war widely unpopular. Multiple tours of duty by regular armed force and reserve units have brought home the pain and suffering of the war to American families in every corner of the nation.

American troops have liberated Iraq from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein but the liberation has failed to establish any semblance of a democratic regime in Baghdad, as President Bush had hoped. Instead, Iraqi insurgent attacks on Americans in the name of defeating foreign occupiers and as jihad sanctioned by Islam, combined with open sectarian warfare between Sunnis and Shias, may have set the stage for the long feared clash of civilizations between Islamic and Western societies and a widening regional warfare between the Sunnis and Shias for the control of the Middle East and Islamic identity.

These conflicts have resulted in Iraqi dead and injured several hundred times more than the American count. The U.N. estimated nearly 35,000 Iraqi deaths in 2006 alone. Nearly two millions Iraqis, including a large proportion of country’s doctors, teachers and other professionals, have fled the war torn country. The Shiite militias are engaged in ethnic cleansing have killed Sunnis or forced them to leave Sunni-Shiite mixed areas of Baghdad.

Islam has not modernized like Christianity and other great religions and is generally governed by its seventh century dogma, which includes jihad to convert or kill nonbelievers. And it may never modernize without a catastrophic upheaval in Islamic societies. Muhammad is believed to be the last prophet of God upon earth and as such the perfection of his seventh century Islamic model cannot be challenged or tolerated by any Muslim. Unfortunately, Muslims are not content to remain in the seventh-century backwater and leave rest of the world alone, but want to benefit from twenty-first century advances. The mandatory literal following of Muhammad’s teachings as enshrined in the Qu’ran and other scriptures in Muslim societies, and the punishment of apostasy by death, prevent free inquiry and freedom of thought, which are necessary for advancing in the modern world. As Theodore Dalrymple brilliantly summarized in his essay, When Islam Breaks Down, City Journal, Spring 2004: “They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.”

Beyond Dalrymple’s logical explanation of Muslim dilemma and despair, the violent jihad against nonbelievers and suicide bombings are motivated by Islam’s promise to those killed committing these heinous acts of direct passage to heaven, where 72 virgins and other unimaginable luxuries of life await for them. These “other world lures” are so firmly planted in the psyche that they become a real outcome of choice in Islamic societies and their pull cannot be easily offset by the prospects of long, torturous and often frustrating economic and social progress in the West.

Islam is a supranational religion in the sense that a Muslim is likely to follow the dictates of religious laws over the laws of the country of his residence. This supranational nature of Islam is a result of Muhammad’s power as a spiritual and secular leader. The resulting inability to make a distinction between state and church likely will result in jihad-justified crimes by Muslim populations in various countries. The attacks in Britain, Holland and Spain are symptoms of this problem. The July 2006 Pew Global Attitude Survey found “roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam.”

Consider the following comments regarding the 9/11 attack in the very recently published autobiography of Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, (Infidel, Free Press): “Every devout Muslim who aspired to practice genuine Islam, even if they didn’t actively support the attack, they must have actually approved of them.” Ms. Ali is a Somalia born Muslim woman who is highly critical of Islam in its current form and was a member of the Dutch parliament. She resigned her parliament seat because of controversy surrounding her views and moved to the United States.

The U.S. experience in dealing with Muslim nations during the early years of the republic as described in just published book (Power, Faith, and Fantasy, America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, Norton) by historian Michael B. Oran also illustrates the brutal nature of Islam. In those early years of the republic Muslim Barbary powers preyed on American shipping and captured, tortured and enslaved hundreds of innocent men and women, and when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson implored the pasha of Tripoli to stop, the pasha told them that the Koran made it the “right and duty” of Muslims “to make war upon” whichever infidels “they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take prisoners.” In retaliation, Congress created a navy in 1790s and the Barbary kingdom was crushed. (Source: Robert Kagan review in January 21-27, 2007 Washington Post Book World).

Iraq’s Sunni insurgency is supported by Jihadist al-Qaeda and there are numerous daily suicide bombings in the country. The Shiite death squads are from the America hating cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army, whom Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has protected because of religious reasons and because Sadr support is crucial for keeping the al-Maliki government in power.

Iran is supporting Sadar and other Shiite militias by providing them with training and advanced weapons. Iran is also behind Shiite Hizbollaha’s attempt to overthrow Lebanon’s Sunni controlled government. Surging oil revenues have emboldened Iran. It is becoming clear that Iran will use Shiite minorities in Middle Eastern countries to foment uprisings and dominate the region. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries have large Shiite populations and this scenario likely will be repeated there. Iran’s push to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of U.N. resolution has increased pressure on Sunni regimes, and Jordan has declared its intention to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Iran is also supporting Islamic extremist Hamas in Palestine, which has resulted in fighting between U.S. supported Palestinian President Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas followers. The number of Fatah and Hamas casualties have surged recently.

Hamas came to power in a western style election but refuses to recognize Israel and abandon its declared policy of destroying that country. It is also refusing to participate in a new election suggested by Abbas. Thus the one vote-one person Western democratic concept is being transformed into one vote-one person-one time Islamic rule.

The National Intelligence Report published on February 2^nd painted a starkly pessimistic picture of the Iraq situation. It warned that “the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene” could lead to anarchy. It added that rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces “almost certainly would lead” to increased sectarian violence. A civil war designation of the conflict would fail to capture the full complexity of the situation, which includes Shia-on-Shia and Shia-Sunni violence, al-Qaeda and Sunni attacks on Coalition forces, and activities of criminal gangs.

Post-Weimar Scenario?

Growing American discontent with the war has resulted in GOP defeat in Congressional elections and Democrats now control both the House and Senate. Following the election setback, President Bush announced a new plan to secure Baghdad in order to create suitable conditions for political reconciliation between different factions, accelerated training of Iraqi forces and swift economic reconstruction. It is generally believed this is the final attempt to prevent sectarian violence from engulfing Iraq. There is a strong possibility that if the latest Bush plan fails, the U.S. forces may withdraw to well defended enclaves outside Baghdad and let Sunni and Shia fight until they are exhausted by mounting death toll.

According to the latest plan, additional 21,500 troops will be sent to help Iraqi troops secure Baghdad. The basic strategy will change from ‘search and destroy-and leave’ to ‘destroy, stay and protect’ in order to prevent insurgents from returning and restarting the mayhem. The new man in charge for implementing the strategy will be highly regarded Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. The success of the plan will depend upon Maliki government keeping its promise to disarm all militias and protect all Iraqi citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation. The President also expects Iraq to amend its Constitution to assure that all Iraqis benefit from oil revenues. Maliki has proven to be an unreliable partner and hence success of the Bush plan remains in doubt. However, recent actions of Maliki government against Sadar militia and determined fighting by Iraqi units are encouraging.

It has become fashionable to compare Iraq with Vietnam. Jane Fonda, who was prominent during the anti-Vietnam period, addressed the recent anti-War Washington rally and shouted peace now. Senator John Kerry was quick to repeat his famous (or infamous) line from his anti-Vietnam War testimony in a recent Senate speech.

President Bush’s favorable rating has plunged to 30 and many Republicans have declared themselves against Bush’s troop increase policy. Democratic presidential hopefuls are falling on each other with proposals for withdrawing from Iraq. In the latest move Senator Barak Obama has introduced legislation to withdraw all American troops by March 2008. Obama has become the first declared candidate to set a firm withdrawal date. The socalled Murtha (who is close to House Speaker Pelosi) proposal will cap troop levels at 140,000 and withdraw them no later than Inauguration Day 2009. Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested a cap on U.S. forces at the current level, redeploying them outside of Iraqi cities, conduct limited training and counterterrorism missions, urge reconciliation among various political factions and negotiate with Syria and Iran. Democratic senator Joe Biden and Republican senator Chuck Hagel advocate partition of Iraq and of course negotiations with S&I. Some Democrats, like Senator Russell Feingold, are advocating cutting funds for the war. The highly respected Republican Senator John Warner and Democratic senator Carl Levin, who now heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in the process of introducing a joint resolution opposing Bush troop increase policy.

While most of the resolutions are nonbonding, Democratic senators Christopher Dodd (a declared candidate) and Russell Feingold want a binding resolution to stop the war. Feingold will cutoff funds for the war. Others from the liberal wing of Democratic party go as far as passing a legislation mandating how the war should be managed and when the troops should be brought home, although the constitution gives the president sole authority to run a war as Commander-in-Chief.

The Obama Controversy

In the midst of the Iraq policy debate a new storm has been created by Senator Biden’s patronizing comment on the African-American background of Obama. Biden said: Obama is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and many other black commentators and politicians took offense at these remarks. Eugene Robinson wrote in the February 2^nd Washington Post: “The word articulate is being used to encompass not just speech but a whole range of cultural cues – dress, bearing, education, golf handicap…Just come out and say it: Gee, he doesn’t sound black at all.” Mr. Robinson probably forgets that Obama’s mother is white. Which means Obama is only 50% black.

Then there is Ms. Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, who in her February 5^th Baltimore Sun article says: “Forget “clean”. Never mind “nice-looking”. The most intriguing word the Delaware senator used in describing Mr. Obama was “mainstream”…It’s harder for black people to get voted into the “mainstream” than you may think – especially black men.” She goes on to say: “Mr Sharpton who sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2004, has already sent signals suggesting the Mr. Obama might not be suitably “black” for his taste.”

The Obama incident shows the difficulty of properly investigating the background of individuals seeking the Presidency of the United States, especially when they come from minority backgrounds. Most Americans admire Condolizza Rice and Colin Powell, but black commentators like Mr. Robinson have attacked Ms. Rice mercilessly because they disagree with her views.

So, why make such a big deal out of an inarticulate, but not malicious, comments of a white senator? Biden may be a motor-mouth but he is not a racist. Similar tactics were used to pressure Tiger Woods to ignore the Asian origin of his mother and emphasize his father’s African heritage. Tiger is married to a beautiful Swedish model and they are expecting their first child soon, who will be 25% black. As Ms. Tucker’s comments confirm, once the scene shifts from the “black-white” to “black” politics, the mixed race blacks are often seen as “not black enough”. A recent survey has suggested Mr. Obama will face this type of discrimination in the black community. May be Messers. Jackson, Sharpton, Robinson and Tucker could compile a “politically correct” dictionary to describe African-Americans and while they are at it tell us how to identify those of mixed race and have different degree of black skin. In my view the race issue is being exploited to impose a candidate on Americans without full investigation of his background.

In the case of Mr. Obama the issue is not whether he is African-American with a white mother, but is about his “true” religious beliefs. He has superb credentials. He has long held a position on Iraq consistent with the current mood of the country. He lacks experience, which is certainly a negative but it is up to Americans to decide if this disqualifies him from becoming President. But Americans will certainly like to know, I certainly do, how deeply he is committed to Christianity and secular principles and to what extent his father and stepfather’s Muslim background have shaped him and will influence him. Despite all the controversy surrounding his middle Muslim name Hussein and his attending a public school in Jakarta, Indonesia, where Islamic education was part of the curriculum, his pastor or anyone else from his Church has not come forward to say that he attends services regularly. We have not seen pictures of him and his family leaving the Church or participating in Church functions. Nor do we know if his children will attend an Islamic school or mosque when they visit their grand parents.

The dangerous role of Islam in the unfolding global crisis, its lack of modernization, the primitive nature of its many beliefs (like violent jihad) and the supranational nature of the faith, demands that Obama clarify his religious beliefs. The mainstream media is unlikely to touch the religion issue and it is up to others to raise it. The Washington Post had the audacity to attack Insight magazine for reporting that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia in its January 28^th editorial. The use of the word “madrassa” could have been avoided, but it is essentially correct because Islamic teaching in a public school in predominantly Muslim Indonesia may not be too different than in a Saudi Arabia financed religious school in Pakistan. According to the Post editorial, here is what Insight said in response: “The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama’s Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have-or retain-Muslim names, Barack and Hussein?” “Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama’s current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ?”

I like to trust Obama. He was wonderful on Opraha Winfrey show. He sounds good. Actually, everything about him sums up like something too good to be true. And that gives me nightmares: things that appear too good to be true often are not what they seem.

I get up at night wondering if we are being charmed by an Islamic Manchurian candidate, who is masquerading as a secular Christian, while in reality, deep in his heart, not just because of his name but because of his heritage and childhood education, he is a Muslim. God forbid. We have practically handed over Iraq to Iran and it would be a catastrophe if a camouflaged Muslim is elected U.S. president. To overcome such fears we need more answers from Mr. Obama.

P.S.: I am not a Biden fan and hope the Obama incident finishes his Presidential hopes. He has been involved in foreign policy for a long time and should know that dividing Iraq among Shia, Sunni and Kurds would effectively transfer control of southern Iraqi oil fields, which produce most of the Iraqi oil, to Iran and provide that nation with additional resources to develop nuclear weapons and finance terror attacks on Israel and the United States.

Unfolding Scenario

The comparison of Iraq with Vietnam is flawed because in Iraq we have serious strategic interests - such as oil, securing the Middle East against Iranian domination, diminish or eliminate Iranian nuclear threat and prevent terrorist attacks on Israel and the United States – and because we have learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. But, Democratic controlled congress’s actions are very similar to what happened during the Vietnam period: there were numerous hearings just as they are planned now; and the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed which required the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any deployment of U.S. forces and to withdraw them within 60 days in the absence of further congressional approval. Today, Democrats have only one vote majority in the Senate, including the Lieberman vote, which they cannot count upon if they really want to rock the boat, and hence they cannot pass any serious anti-Bush legislation. The Democratic sponsored nonbonding Iraq resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq policy failed to attract 60 votes needed to launch the debate and get Congressional approval. Lieberman and all Republican senators, except Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, opposed it.

The mood of the country is not deeply anti-Iraq War because of 9/11. Americans are worried but also see the dangers of sudden and premature withdrawal. Furthermore, draftees fought the Vietnam War, while today’s we have a volunteer army. Discoveries of new terror plots in Britain and other countries keep the terror threat visible and provide an on going justification for the current conflict.

The growing unrest against the War partly reflects absence of terrorist attacks and steady economic recovery from the 9/11 shocks. Unfortunately, the unrest may grow with continued prosperity and security as Americans yearn to have their peace and prosperity party last forever. Opportunistic politicians are only ready to promise them that dream by suggesting withdrawal from the far away conflict, burying their head in the sand and hoping the problems will go away..

It is said the favorite scenes on Arab televisions are of U.S. troops packing up and going home from Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu in 1993 and that panicked flight from Vietnam in 1975. Islamic radicals are betting these scenes will be repeated in Iraq. Surely, they will offer “peace” if we sacrifice Israel, which has always been the red herring to detract attention from their goal of Islamic empire (See Islam’s Imperial Dreams by Efraim Karsh in April 2006 Commentary).

Almost all knowledgeable observers consider an immediate withdrawal or a declared policy of withdrawal disastrous. As Henry Kissinger put it in his brilliant January 21^st WP article, Stability in Iraq and Beyond: “But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option…An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled U.S. intervention in the Balkans.” I might add it would substantially increase the risk of oil going to $100 or higher, nuclear proliferation, and an attack on Israel, which would force us to intervene because of our treaty obligations. As historian Michael Oren shows the U.S. encounter with the Middle East began centuries before the Iraq War and he predicts the U.S. “will press on with their civic mission as mediators and liberators in the area and strive for a pax Americana.”

In the immediate future, whether the Bush strategy succeeds or fails in securing Baghdad and allowing the elected “moderate” government to function properly, the U.S. forces are likely to handover day-to-day operations to Iraqis as soon as possible and withdraw into secure enclaves with the principle objective of, as Kissinger describes them, protecting “the borders against infiltration and to prevent the establishment of terrorist training areas or Taliban-type control over significant regions.”